Deconstructing Nongnuch Singhadecha: Hysteria from Matichon's Chief Right-Wing Apologist for the Junta

IN PRINT

Support new constitution

A local columnist argues that it's useless to second-guess the coupmakers. Instead, all Thais should work together to make the transition back to democracy

KAMOL HENGKIETISAK

Bangkok Post

If morning TV news is to be believed, it seems there is nothing good any more in Thailand, said Nongnuch Singhadecha, a Matichon writer.

A certain group advocates boycotting the upcoming referendum on the constitution, even if it means bloodshed, as it is the product of dictatorship. On the economic front, some say that Thailand is facing a crisis, pointing to a rise in the unemployment figure from 1.3% to 1.5%, noted Nongnuch.

She did not think well of morning news talk show hosts who could only repeat what they heard without offering any analysis. She asked if the 1.5% jobless number was really high.

Nongnuch cited Singapore's GDP growth of 7.9% last year, with a 2.6% unemployment figure. This year's first quarter figure GDP growth was even stronger, and yet the unemployment figure rose to 2.9%. Does this mean Singapore's economy is facing a crisis? Does the United States' jobless figure of 4.5% mean that country is on the brink of disaster?

I agree with her about the unemployment numbers. If the economy was in the toilet, the numbers would be going up, but instead, unemployment is dropping. The country is probably at full employment.

Turning to the political front, Nongnuch said that political activists and academics would certainly oppose all efforts by the CNS and the interim government with the simple mantra that anything connected with the coup could not be justified. Instead of helping to restore calm in the country, they chose to make the situation worse.

It was useless to talk about whether the coup should have happened because it was already accomplished, and there were countless reasons why it took place. It was pointless to speculate on whether the country might be better off under Thaksin.

It was also pointless, said Nongnuch, to say that the coup leaders should not have revoked the whole B.E. 2540 Constitution, but only certain contentious sections. This was laughable, as the coup leaders needed to act quickly to seize power and didn't have the time or expertise to deliberate over which sections should be amended or abolished.

I almost puked my lunch when I read this today. The coup leaders had to act quickly to seize power? According to many sources, they were conspiring to overthrow the government since at least the beginning of '06.

Certain people would rather pose on the higher moral ground of democracy defenders, and condemn others as lackeys of dictators for participating in drawing up a new constitution and sitting in newly constituted independent organisations, said the Matichon writer.

The democracy defenders are on the high moral ground. The others are lackeys of the military junta. This is indisputable. The junta handpicked the CDC and NLA.

A law faculty dean voiced his opinion on TV that it wasn't the role of soldiers to meddle in politics, and said the Thai people were not patient enough to give democracy time to develop. Nongnuch said this was discriminatory and defended the rights of bureaucrats and the military to engage in politics. They are also Thais, and have the right and duty to choose to help govern the country, she said.

I agree with the dean. Nongnuch is an idiot. Nobody picked the bureaucrats or the military to represent the country. The bureaucracy and the military have proven over many decades that the only constituencies they care about are their own.

It would be ridiculous to say that doctors should only treat patients or that academics should stick to the classroom and not utter political comments. Yet some doctors and academics dare to say that soldiers and career bureaucrats should refrain from politics. What a double standard, declared Nongnuch.

Week after week, Nongnuch rants, and the more she rants, the more idiotic she sounds. If she knew anything, she would admit that the bureaucracy and the military are part of the problem concerning Thailand's political development. Countless thesis' have been written on this topic.

Another criticism that irked her was the claim that it was the bureaucrats, and not the people, who were presently drawing up the new constitution. Would they say that the United Nations, the biggest bureaucracy in the world, is a useless organization and should be abolished? Would they prefer to write in the constitution that this country does not need civil servants, soldiers, etc?

The UN is not the biggest bureaucracy in the world. She really is stupid. Plus, Thai bureaucrats have proven their incompetence over and over again. Academics know it, the people know it, and anybody with half a brain cell knows it. And, nobody is arguing that the bureaucracy should be abolished. It should stay out of politics.

Those democracy activists and academics should not have talked about shedding blood to oppose the new constitution if they are really so democratically minded, said Nongnuch. They should believe in the people's voice.

I agree with this. I believe in non-violent civil disobedience.

In the present economic climate, most people would like to see a general election in December as promised, so as to return the country to normalcy. The politicians also would like to see a general election as soon as possible, because otherwise they have no platform to voice their opinions. Every side should come together to find the best way out, said the writer. There is still time to amend the first draft. The Constitution Drafting Committee is open to suggestions and opinions, concluded Nongnuch.

No comment on this bit, because it is insignificent.

I don't know why Kamol loves to talk about Nongnuch every week. Her right-wing hysteria really grates on my nerves.

Deconsructing Matichon Writer Nongnuch Singhadecha in Bangkok Post

Don't let capitalism run amok


Sufficiency economy is a way to apply a framework of justice to today's version of capitalism, in which it seems that 'anything goes'

Bangkok Post

KAMOL HENGKIETISAK

Since the interim government declared sufficiency economy the guiding economic policy of this country, there has been fierce criticism from some quarters that foreigners may misunderstand and think the government is closing up the country, turning its back on international trade and reverting back to a stone-age economy, noted Nongnuch Singhadecha, a Matichon writer.

Nongnuch reminded those Thai critics that they should read His Majesty the King's speeches about sufficiency economy before making fools of themselves by claiming that foreigners would be frightened by such a philosophy. His Majesty first explained the concept in 1974, then again in December 1997, but there were still some people who could not grasp it. Thus His Majesty explained it once more in December the following year. Over the years, there had never been any negative reactions from foreigners, only from some Thais who were unduly worried that foreigners would be scared.

Nongnuch expressed wonder that sufficiency economy could be so hard to understand, or that it warranted controversy and debate. She doesn't doubt that sufficiency economy can be applied in practice, because this is the philosophy that has been taught by our ancestors and our religion.

The main idea of sufficiency economy is to "do everything in moderation according to one's means and capability, not too extreme, not too greedy. Do not take advantage over other people. Be reasonable. One may have some luxuries, but not at the expense of others" (from His Majesty's speech given on December 4, 1998).

Thais who are fearful that sufficiency economy will replace free market capitalism as the dominant economic philosophy in this country tirelessly espouse the good points of capitalism. They cite Adam Smith, who said that free markets would create wealth because everyone would have incentives to work and to produce. The more one works and produces, the wealthier one can be become.

Yet there are billions of people in this world who still lack basic amenities such as potable water. Many find it hard to get enough food to survive each day. If the global community can help these billions of people rise above this abject poverty, it will do the world a lot of good. There is no need to talk about wealth in the capitalistic sense at all.

Whoever craves capitalism to the extreme should consider that it is capitalism itself that creates insufficiency, because it creates economic injustice. Wealth is concentrated in certain groups while the majority don't have enough to eat. Even in the United States itself, some pundits suggest that in the near future there will be only the very rich and the working class, while the middle class will disappear. The gap between the haves and the havenots is ever widening.

Capitalists often argue that countries must create investor-friendly environments with clear-cut investment rules, so that investors can plan future moves. Yet it is often these same people who create chaos and instability throughout the world by speculating on and attacking weak currencies to reap enormous profits, without caring for the suffering of those who lose out.

Nongnuch concluded by saying that she would not dispute the notion that free market capitalism is the least evil of economic models, but it still has many flaws. It needs wisdom to manage capitalism so that its adverse effects cannot hurt society too much. Such wisdom is sufficiency economy, said the Matichon writer.

What's up with this broad? She rails against capitalism and embraces Royalist neo-feudalist jargon like most anti-liberal Thai academics and writers.

And like most Thai thinkers, her analysis is wrong and her solution is simple-minded and moronic.

There is no such thing as extreme capitalism. Every country in the world has a mixed economy. Some swing towards freer markets, some swing towards state socialism.

A country like Hong Kong, which is as extremely capitalistic as you can get is widely successful.

The problem in Thailand is not capitalism, of an extreme or mild variety. The problem is Thai capitalism, of which its negative aspects are manifested through inefficiency, lack of integrity, greed, exploitation, social stratification and incompetence.

I am totally convinced that Thailand could have a wildly successful economy if certain people tempered their greed, the legal system was sound, the education system was decent, and if the government wasn't corrupt and inefficient.

Also, there is nothing stopping Thailand from adopting a Scandinavian model or a Swiss model or a Singaporean model.

There are many models to chose from, and the king's advice can be used as a guide, but it does nothing as a theory in determining rational public policy. And why use the king's so-called theory as a basis for public policy when that policy can never be debated by the government? And who will judge the efficacy of sufficiency theory? Going down the sufficiency theory road is a slippery slope that no government would be able to extricate itself from in case it needs to change direction.

But one thing we know for sure, the Thai capitalist model sucks and needs to be seriously reformed. The "blame the farang" model may work for some writers who don't want to take responsibility for what happens in Thailand, but as matter of public policy it is totally useless.